Most portable fire extinguishers are of a similar design where the fire extinguishing powder is contained in a pressurized chamber. Fire extinguishers of this type require scheduled maintenance because the powder within the chamber can settle and cake preventing it from being dispensed when needed. The pressure within the chamber may also leak over time and be insufficient to propel the powder out of the dispensing nozzle. A further limitation, based upon this design is due to the pressurized condition of the chamber, powder is placed into the chamber in a small opening in the top of the extinguisher. This scheduled maintenance allow moisture intrusion causing caking. Current extinguishers can only be service by trained certified technicians, and the certification is issued by the fire marshal for each state. The current fire system in place today requires the services of a third party. The service companies (third parties) are charged with maintaining the system. They cannot in fact meet the standards required of them. They cannot meet the requirements of the UL label. Nor can they meet the manufacturer's requirements.
UL states each extinguisher must be maintained in the same manner as it was tested. The powder must be the manufacturer's powder. The lubricants must be the same manufacturer's brand. The hanger must be of the same manufacturer. If these requirements are not met the UL listing is voided and the extinguishers must be recalled. It is impossible for any service company to meet these requirements. All service firms perform the maintenance of the extinguishers in service vehicles. These vehicles are small vans or pick-up trucks. They can carry at most two recovery systems, one for ABC and one for BC. There are no service vehicles capable of carrying a recovery system for each brand of extinguisher as required by UL. All extinguishers in service today have contaminated powder and the UL has been voided. This also speaks to the lubricants and parts as well.
The manufacturer and NFPA-10 standards also impose standards that cannot be met by the service firms. The manufacturers require that only their powder, parts and lubricants must be used in their products. They also require standard for the servicing of the same. The concern for the environmental impact on their powder i.e. the humidity level, the amount of air the powder is exposed too, the mixing of powder. The manufacturers produce their product in a controlled environment and as such can protect against caking and maintaining a fluid effect with their powder. The current extinguishers use chemical recycled thru a recovery system thus the mixing of chemicals. This extinguisher has the only enclosed chemical cartridge and no mixing of the chemical can take place.
Mixing the powder and using their own brand of lubricants and parts they allow an abundance of air in various stages to compromise the powder. Currently the only prevention for this is to never open the extinguisher and to return it to the manufacturer when it is required to be hydro tested or to have the six-year tear down to clear the powder. It is commonly understood that because the current system is made up of pressurized portable fire extinguishers resulting in the compaction of the powder and therefore must be fluffed. The current system is plagued with serious problems. The service firms have very little supervision and are in a position to abuse the public. Most enforcement officers are charged with other more serious duties, i.e. arson etc. and has little time to dedicate to a system that is in fact impossible to maintain. The vast majorities of service firms operate out of the back of their trucks and are continually on the move, making them difficult to locate and to implement any type of enforcement.
Another limitation with portable fire extinguishers that are currently available is that the fire extinguishes can only be shipped by land because they are pressurized, and could rupture when they are shipped by air. The around shipping is a HASMAT requirement that the proposed portable fire extinguisher would not have because the tank is not pressurized.
Current extinguishers are open to wear and tear because of the constant pressure and the tear down process. When serviced they are fired into a recycling chamber and all he parts must be disassembled and cleaned. All the pressure rings must be replaced and every part must them be reassembled with new powder being placed within the chamber prior to pressurizing the chamber. The servicing of current fire extinguishers often creates more wear and tear on the fire extinguisher than when it is used to extinguish a fire.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,189,624 issued to James on Feb. 20, 2001 and Japan Patent Number JP9,225,056 issued to Yamazaki Tomoki on Sep. 2, 1997 disclose fire extinguishing mechanisms where the chamber is not continuously pressurized, and the pressurized chamber is a separate entity integrated within the chamber. While these patents disclose a separate pressurized canister, the canister is not located in a position that is easy to service, replace, or inspect. This minimizes the ability determine the charge level of the CO2 cartridge.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,541,554 issued to C H Smith on Feb. 13 1951 and Russian Patent Number RU 2,209,101 issued to Glavatski G. D. Et Al. Nov. 2, 2002 discloses a fire extinguisher with external CO2 gas cartridge. In the case US '554 the CO2 gas cartridge sits on top of the fire extinguisher chamber and is not integrated within the handle of the fire extinguisher. In the case of RU '101 the CO2 gas cartridge is external to the extinguisher and is connected to the extinguisher with a pipe or hose. While both of these patents disclose a CO2 cartridge that is external to the chamber, neither of them is placed in the handle to allow a configuration of the fire extinguisher that is simple to inspect and replace.
Russian Patent Number RU2,209,101 issued to Glavatski G. D. Et Al. Nov. 2, 2002 discloses a fire extinguisher with an internal fluffing mechanism consisting of a coiled spring. It is known that one of the problems with powder type fire extinguishers is the possibility that the extinguishing powder within the chamber can cake and harden if it is not fluffed to keep the powder in liquid configuration. While the RU '101 patent discloses a fluffing mechanism, the fluffing mechanism is operated by a wound spring, and one the spring has been used there is no mechanism to wind the spring. The proposed product does not have this limitation because it provides an external mechanical interface that allows a user to manually fluff the powered.
Due to the pressurized condition that exists with pressurized fire extinguishers, the opening where powder is placed into the extinguisher is limited due to the structural requirement to maintain pressure within the chamber at all times. The proposed application eliminates this need by providing an external pressurized gas cartridge, thus allowing the chamber to exist in a normally un-pressurized condition. Because the chamber is not under pressure the top opening of the extinguisher can be enlarged to allow easier filling of the fire extinguisher with powder, or checking the amount and or condition of the powder within the chamber. This extinguisher does not require this testing, it is not pressurized constantly, only when it is needed to extinguish a fire and then it only holds pressure for the maximum of a minute.
What is needed is a fire extinguisher with an external gas cartridge where the gas cartridge is located in the handle, a fluffer is accessible from outside the chamber, and the chamber has an enlarged top opening for filling the extinguisher. The proposed fire extinguisher provides this solution by providing a fire extinguisher with an external gas cartridge, external fluffer and large opening.